<p>Rather than continue to hijack other threads, such as "Asians at Williams" and "What separates Williams from the other top LACs", I have taken the liberty of starting this thread to continue with the perennial , recurring theme of athletics at Williams and other schools.</p>
<p>Here is a recent post by EPHMAN:</p>
<p>Once again </p>
<hr>
<p>to debunk a few myths ... Yes, Williams has the most success of any liberal arts college in athletics, and that is no doubt part of the campus culture. But it also has the most success of any liberal arts college (outside of those with a conservatory or a specific arts focus) in the arts, when you look at combined campus level of activity and interest and alumni success in art history, studio art, dance, music, and theater. Same goes with science, as Williams has produced (outside of a place like Harvey Mudd or perhaps Swarthmore which has an engineering) the most or near the most successful math/science alums of any liberal arts school, measured by things like NSF grants, admission to top grad programs, and Apker awards for graduates over the last decade or so. So Williams' culture of success includes athletics, but is not single-mindedly focused on athletics as often portrayed by certain posters. Yet you don't see those who post here focusing on athletics say, beware, if you are interested in Williams, you better well had love a cappella music, theater and dance due to the prevalance and popularity for participation and attendance of those events on campus (and by the way, except for games against Amherst, NCAA games, or homecoming games, attendance at a cappella concerts and major theater concerts on campus generally is equal to or greater than attendance at athletic events). I don't know what percentage of Williams students in total participate in one of the numerous campus theater, music, dance, or art groups, major in the fine arts, or have performed in a campus production of some sort, but I would be willing to bet it is right around the same percentage of students who are varsity athletes. And the percentage of students involved in community service or campus leadership is likewise right at the same level, or higher. </p>
<p>There are more men on the men's cross country and track team than on the football team -- and I don't think anyone is claiming that participation in these sports is associated with a particular culture or academic problems or whatnot. The percentage of Williams students involved in football, hockey, baseball, basketball is basically the same or less than every other NESCAC school. It is the relatively huge rosters in track, swimming, cross country, crew, and tennis, particularly on the men's side, that account for the difference in varsity percentage between Williams and, say, Amherst. And very, very few of the athletes in any of those sports are "tips", meaning their academic credentials are basically in line with the rest of campus. On a percentage basis, Amherst has far more low-band tip admits than Williams (as Amherst has the same or bigger roster in football, hockey, basketball, the primary tip sports). And Amherst is just as, or more, successful as Williams in these sports. That is the point loss in acting like Williams has this total jock-culture. The most consistently successful and largest programs are generally the ones with top student-athletes who probably wouldn't ever be called a "jock" by their peers -- cross country, track, tennis, swimming, crew, etc. </p>
<p>IN terms of the football team, the average SAT of the tipped football playes this year was supposedly around 1400. Williams, along with Amherst, has the most qualified football athletes of any NESCAC school, and the football rosters are more or less the same size at each NESCAC school (many of which are substantially smaller than Williams in overall student body size).</p>